Editorial: A question of judgment

Friday

Aug 22, 2008 at 12:01 AMAug 22, 2008 at 9:18 PM

Normally we don't give much credence to allegations hurled by candidates at their opponents during a political campaign. That said, the accusations from Peoria County State's Attorney Kevin Lyons that challenger Darin LaHood acted improperly and perhaps unethically by injecting himself into an ongoing rape investigation and pending trial do give us pause.

Normally we don't give much credence to allegations hurled by candidates at their opponents during a political campaign. That said, the accusations from Peoria County State's Attorney Kevin Lyons that challenger Darin LaHood acted improperly and perhaps unethically by injecting himself into an ongoing rape investigation and pending trial do give us pause.

Let us first lay out the dueling versions of what transpired.

Lyons charges that LaHood showed up "unannounced and uninvited" last week at the South Side home of a teen sexual assault victim. There he talked with the girl's mother, indicated he had "read all the police reports in this case," made some disparaging remarks about how it had been handled, and left his business card, Lyons says. He claims LaHood initially misrepresented himself to the family as "the new prosecutor of the case."

Lyons called LaHood's involvement "an offensive invasion into the private life of a rape victim" and an example of a candidate who "will say and do anything to win an election."

LaHood acknowledges that he went to the home twice, but disputes Lyons' allegations beyond that as "fallacious" or "hyperbole." He insists his visit and behavior are not the issue here but an alleged rapist - Monterius Hinkle - becoming an alleged serial rapist because the incumbent state's attorney didn't prosecute him following previous arrests. Lyons' allegations are a politically motivated attempt to deflect attention from that "bottom line," said LaHood.

He believes he has an obligation, in preparation for this office, "to ascertain how families who have been victimized by unspeakable crimes feel about their treatment in our criminal justice system," and to get that information firsthand. He says he had no intention of talking to the victim, only to a father "outraged" by what happened to his daughter. He maintains that he had no intention of using what he learned for political purposes. "I make no apologies," LaHood said. "I would do it again ... absolutely."

We'd say this: There's a lot of he said-he said here. It would help if the family involved clarified matters, particularly regarding the alleged misrepresentation. We'd welcome that, while sensitive to the fact they didn't volunteer to be in the middle of this public spat.

We confess that our first-blush reaction was, "What could LaHood have been thinking?" Perhaps the most viable of longtime prosecutor Lyons' challengers, he had been cruising along, racking up police department endorsements. Why complicate his campaign and open himself to charges of exploiting someone else's private tragedy for his personal gain, especially when he didn't need this family to make Hinkle an issue? At the very least, LaHood's timing - with Hinkle's trial set for September - left a lot to be desired. Would LaHood be happy about this if the roles were reversed?

Even if politics did motivate Lyons to go public, LaHood isn't knocking on a rape victim's door on Peoria's South Side unless he's running for state's attorney, either. Meanwhile, LaHood's dodging and dancing to direct questions about how he learned the identity of the family and their home address have not inspired confidence. He says the information was provided by a "neighbor" and confirmed by "a police officer not involved with the case." Unless Peoria's police department is now in the habit of sharing such with any curious citizen who asks, one or some of its employees have some explaining to do, too.

Arguably, Hinkle's criminal case has been compromised. His lawyer says he'll ask for a change of venue because his client is now a political issue and can't get a fair trial in Peoria. While some may fault Lyons and his press conference for that, we'd suggest that challenger LaHood essentially convicting Hinkle pre-trial and calling him a "monster" on local TV also is a factor. Rhetorical restraint is not such a bad thing in a state's attorney.

It's difficult to know how much this episode will resonate with rank-and-file Peorians, who may view it as merely two attorneys shooting from the lip at each other when it's the shootings in the streets that matter to them. Here's our bottom line:

We look for many qualities in a state's attorney, but beyond the basic credentials, near the top of that list we want an officeholder who is trustworthy, who consistently exercises good judgment, who plays fair, who is not beholden to any one group or class of citizens but to the basic administration of justice, which includes convictions of those who deserve them. Those are our expectations, and the ones voters should enforce come November.

Peoria Journal Star

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.